Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
August 20, 1988BMJOpen Access

Patients with myocardial infarction in 1981-2 had significantly better three-year survival compared to those in 1966-7 (86% vs 75%), despite having more severe infarctions.

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Did three-year survival rates after myocardial infarction improve between 1966-7 and 1981-2 in Auckland?

Population

394 patients who survived four weeks after myocardial infarction in Auckland

Comparison

Myocardial infarction management in the… vs Myocardial infarction management in the…

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

3 years

Key result

Patients with myocardial infarction in 1981-2 had significantly better three-year survival compared to those in 1966-7 (86% vs 75%), despite having more severe infarctions.

Authors

ASAlistair W. StewartJFJohn G. FraserRNR M Norris

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Supports post-MI survival gains contributing to Auckland CHD mortality decline; extends observational trends but leaves causality and generalizability open.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=394)

Structured PICO

Did three-year survival rates after myocardial infarction improve between 1966-7 and 1981-2 in Auckland?

P
Population
394 patients who survived four weeks after myocardial infarction in Auckland (191 from 1966-7 and 203 from 1981-2)
I
Intervention
Myocardial infarction management in the 1981-1982 cohort
C
Comparator
Myocardial infarction management in the 1966-1967 cohort
O
Outcome
Three year survival ratehard clinical

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 86% vs 75%

Improved three-year survival after myocardial infarction contributed to the overall decline in coronary heart disease mortality between the late 1960s and early 1980s in Auckland.

Cite This Study

Stewart et al. (1988) conducted a cohort in Myocardial infarction (n=394). 1981-2 cohort vs. 1966-7 cohort was evaluated on Three year survival. Patients with myocardial infarction in 1981-2 had significantly better three-year survival compared to those in 1966-7 (86% vs 75%), despite having more severe infarctions.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a097b3736c3abab5045c572https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.297.6647.517
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share